Flo's early Recruiting Class Rankings

[Tom McAndrew]

with Fix, Berge, and Warner still in play, these rankings are likely to change.

you can read their early class rankings at THIS LINK.

Flo has Iowa at #5. I might rank them #1 on Spencer Lee alone. Then again, Flo has Cornell #1, and it's hard to argue with that as the Big Red have #2 (Yianni) and #4 (Arujau) as part of their class.

 

[garw]

Manvillle, Lee and Nevills don't warrant a mention? What am I missing? Thanks in advance.

 

[matter7172]

Manvillle, Lee and Nevills don't warrant a mention? What am I missing? Thanks in advance.

It's not explicitly stated, but Flo probably considers Manville and Nevills to be part of the 2016 recruiting class. That said, I'd consider Nick Lee and whatever minor commitments PSU has/gets to be better than Missouri's class, for example.

 

[FineMaterial]

This FLO article is a return to really really crappy writing. This is disappointing as they had been on the upswing.
The clarifications needed: This is a 2017 ranking. That is nowhere in the article, and that would have been nice as the video is about "big news" from this weekend, ABOUT the class of 2018!!
Hey FLO: Pretend you are a national publication, you need to cover the basics in news articles. These should not be written as blog posts.

 

[CholleyVandine]

with Fix, Berge, and Warner still in play, these rankings are likely to change.

you can read their early class rankings at THIS LINK.

Flo has Iowa at #5. I might rank them #1 on Spencer Lee alone. Then again, Flo has Cornell #1, and it's hard to argue with that as the Big Red have #2 (Yianni) and #4 (Arujau) as part of their class.

Hall (#1) and Suriano (#2) weren't enough for Flo to rank PSU's 2016 class number 1, so at least their 2017 Iowa ranking is consistent

 

[RoarLions1]

Without doing a full-blown statistical study and analysis, it's my humble opinion that being #1 isn't where a team wants to be.

 

[a_mshaffer]

the only good thing about the rankings is being able to look back at them several years later. Other than that it is just data points to declare who coaches better, ID talents better, recruits better, etc.

 

[WildTurk]

#5? Come on now

 

[El-Jefe]

I really enjoyed the Penn State Era.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

I really enjoyed the Penn State Era.

Slush fund must be filled with devalued Rubles

 

[lobo lion]

I really enjoyed the Penn State Era.

brief as it was; woe is us now that we are second (or third) tier

 

[FineMaterial]

Not sure what is being said here. Read the article with the understanding that it is for the 2017 class and it is totally fair. PSU has one nationally relevant guy. With elite recruits you can only average 2.5 per year. Given last year's and next year's class mixing in a 1 person class is a mathematical necessity. Cael even had to pull out the "delayed enrollment" trick this year to make it all fit.

 

[RoarLions1]

the only good thing about the rankings is being able to look back at them several years later. Other than that it is just data points to declare who coaches better, ID talents better, recruits better, etc.

Add "is the luckiest", and your list is getting close.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

There isn't enough money (even in the slush fund) to be #1 every year. The key is to hit on a lot more than you miss, string together classes of high quality recruits, and piece together a solid lineup across 10 weights year after year.

Not losing any sleep over this class ranking ...

 

[NoVa Lion]

This FLO article is a return to really really crappy writing. This is disappointing as they had been on the upswing.
The clarifications needed: This is a 2017 ranking. That is nowhere in the article, and that would have been nice as the video is about "big news" from this weekend, ABOUT the class of 2018!!
Hey FLO: Pretend you are a national publication, you need to cover the basics in news articles. These should not be written as blog posts.

I just read it so I don't know if Flo edited the article or not but it clearly state that this is for the class of 2017 at the end of the 2nd paragraph.

 

[FineMaterial]

I just read it so I don't know if Flo edited the article or not but it clearly state that this is for the class of 2017 at the end of the 2nd paragraph.

Yes, the entire 2nd paragraph is new, plus they got rid of (or unlinked) the 2018 recruiting video.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Yes, the entire 2nd paragraph is new, plus they got rid of (or unlinked) the 2018 recruiting video.

Well, apparently the must read this message board and paid attention to what you posted.

 

[FineMaterial]

Well, apparently the must read this message board and paid attention to what you posted.

 

[Hedonist1]

Nick Lee is going to be a hammer. He has the "it" factor like Nolf and Retherford.

 

[crazytoadie]

The rankings seem skewed based on volume rather than talent/ranking. Otherwise, you cannot justify NC at 3 (25, 37, 69, 75, 83 ranked) versus Mich at 7 (24, 44, 46, and 53). In other words, having the 83rd wrestler vaults you 4 spots in the rankings. NC and Mich top rank recruits are even, NC has slight advantage in second highest ranked recruit and Mich has significant advantages in the third and fourth ranked recruits. Mich essentially has 4 top 50 recruits and NC has 2 yet NC outranks Mich? And not just slightly but by four total slots. The avg for ranked recruits in top 10 teams goes:

Corn. - 36.8
ISU - 17.3
NC - 57.8
VT - 55.5
Iowa - 47
Okla - 47
Mich - 41.8
Neb - 38.3
OSU - 13
Brown - 37

The top two have both quantity and multiple elite guys so easy to justify them. However, the average recruit ranking thereafter increases from #3 rank team down to #9 ranked team. Even discarding OSU as outlier due to only two ranked commits, it seems that the order from #3 to #8 is more realistically:

Neb - (3 rank recruits)
Mich - (4 ranked)
Iowa - (3 ranked but most elite recruit of cycle)
Okla - (4 ranked)
VT - (4 ranked)
NC - (5 ranked)

No way to justify otherwise and still no way to justify VT class over either Oklahoma or Mich who have same number of ranked recruits but a higher average for the ranked guys.

 

[diggerpup]

Yep. Volume skews the recruiting team ranking.

It leaves an inaccurate barometer, similar to football recruiting.

So many SEC teams oversign, often taking 30+ kids in a class, and that's one reason the SEC teams constantly have (artificially) high recruiting rankings.

In the 9.9 world, quality will always be more critical vs quantity.